State of New Jersey v. Jason Williams ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0459-22
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JASON WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted February 26, 2024 – Decided March 5, 2024
Before Judges Sabatino and Chase.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 07-05-1543.
Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Monique D. Moyse, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Hannah Faye Kurt,
Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Jason Williams pled guilty in 2007 to third-degree possession
of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial
court sentenced him to two years' probation and various fines. In 2018, the
federal government initiated removal proceedings against defendant, a native of
Guyana, because his drug conviction subjected him to mandatory deportation.
In March 2020, defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief
("PCR") with the trial court. In his petition, defendant contends he received
ineffective assistance of his plea counsel because counsel allegedly gave him
affirmative mis-advice about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea.
He also contends his lawyer failed to advise him about his ability as a first-time
offender to apply for pretrial intervention ("PTI").
On July 7, 2022, the trial court rejected defendant's PCR petition and his
motion to withdraw his guilty plea, doing so without an evidentiary hearing.
Defendant appeals that determination. He argues in his brief:
POINT ONE
MR. WILLIAMS IS ENTITLED TO AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR RELIEF ON HIS
CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY RENDERED
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY
AFFIRMATIVELY MISADVISING HIM ABOUT
THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS
PLEA AND FAILING TO ADVISE HIM ABOUT PTI.
A-0459-22
2
POINT TWO
MR. WILLIAMS’S GUILTY PLEA MUST BE SET
ASIDE OR THE MATTER REMANDED FOR AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
Defendant seeks a remand for an evidentiary hearing. The State consents
to such a hearing, mainly because the trial court did not correctly apply the
controlling case law under State v. Nuñez-Valdez, 200 N.J. 129 (2009).
Because the parties agree that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, we
remand this matter to the trial court to conduct the hearing. The scope of the
hearing shall encompass both the immigration mis-advice claim and the PTI
claim. The question of whether defendant's guilty plea may be withdrawn shall
abide the disposition of the ineffectiveness issues.
We do not retain jurisdiction. Depending on the outcome of the remand,
either party may file a new appeal, or a motion for leave to appeal, as may be
appropriate.
Remanded.
A-0459-22
3